Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,649 Year: 4,906/9,624 Month: 254/427 Week: 0/64 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Best approaches to deal w/ fundamentalism
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2935 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 1 of 142 (500641)
02-28-2009 6:07 PM


In the thread on 'Expelled-no intelligence allowed' Theodoric's last post got me thinking about starting this thread.
The problem he brings up is what to do about fundamentalists that proclaim biblical inerrancy and are 'locked in' to a mental state that allows no change or growth to occur. Sort of the modern day counterpart of the shout, "great is the goddess Diana of the Ephesians".
I would suggest this thread to address the issue of the best approaches to deal with this particular problem.
This is not a thread to argue about biblical inerrancy. It is not to discuss atheism vs theism. It is only to discuss how best to promote dissemination of ToE evidence to those who are currently ignorant of those facts. It is to discuss the best manner/way to bring everybody up to speed with those facts. I am assuming then for the purposes of this thread that the argument of whether the ToE is true or not is past, that it is indeed a fact.
I would like to hear from theists who accept ToE and whether accepting ToE presented a challenge to their faith and how they overcame/resolved this conflict in their minds, or whether it presented no conflict from the get go. What was it that facilitated this change in viewpoint allowing you to accept the ToE?
From the atheist camp I'd like to hear whether they think challenging the fundamentalists' faith along with pressing the ToE is the better approach, maintaining the dichotomy as an opportunity to rid the world of 'superstition', or whether they think the ToE accepted by a majority of religious people is an acceptable goal and worthy of pursuit in its own right.
The thread about the bible supporting a flat earth world view revealed to me that this has a partial success. There were two who posted that seemed to accept a fallible position as long as that was due to the fallibility of men rather than of God.
Another idea is creating a movie debunking "Expelled - no intelligence allowed" that includes the strongest current evidence for the ToE and abiogenisis(an area of 'expelled' that was woefully out of date).
What other ideas do you have to provide for this mini-think tank thread? Someone thought of the idea for this forum at some point in time, and now it is a reality. It does such a good job that YECs I have encountered elsewhere are afraid to post here and one even referred to it as "the lion's den".

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Huntard, posted 02-28-2009 7:04 PM shalamabobbi has replied
 Message 4 by Taz, posted 02-28-2009 7:48 PM shalamabobbi has replied
 Message 5 by ICANT, posted 02-28-2009 8:47 PM shalamabobbi has replied
 Message 9 by Otto Tellick, posted 03-01-2009 2:10 AM shalamabobbi has not replied
 Message 14 by Stagamancer, posted 03-01-2009 3:42 PM shalamabobbi has replied
 Message 19 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 12:32 AM shalamabobbi has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13082
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 2 of 142 (500645)
02-28-2009 6:49 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2381 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 3 of 142 (500647)
02-28-2009 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by shalamabobbi
02-28-2009 6:07 PM


that debunikg movie, it's already here.
That movie you wanted to make to debunk expelled? That's already been done.
See here.
16 movies in all, enjoy!
As to the other part of your post. I think some people are beyond fredemption. The best way to introduce them to the evidence is to tell them about it, but if they're truly lost, they won't except it anyway, at that point in time, it is generaly better for one's own sanity to just give up.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-28-2009 6:07 PM shalamabobbi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-01-2009 12:48 AM Huntard has not replied
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 03-01-2009 8:16 AM Huntard has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3378 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 4 of 142 (500650)
02-28-2009 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by shalamabobbi
02-28-2009 6:07 PM


You've obviously never actually talked to a fundy before.
The number thing that will drive you crazy is these people, who claim to follow god's 10 commandments, will play dumb to avoid admitting obvious facts. This, to me, is borderline lying. This is what defense lawyers do to try to discredit witnesses. They play dumb and pretend not to understand really obvious facts and proclaim victory.
Case in point. A couple years ago I almost went insane talking to a certain member on this board over a trivial issue in the bible. I asked him how he could justify certain genocidal campaigns sanctioned by god in the old testament. He began to play dumb and told me he didn't know what I was talking about. Ok... I thought, so I began to give him all the references to the Israelites' genocidal campaigns against the Canaanites. He then responded he couldn't see anywhere where any wrong doing was committed. So, I went ahead and pointed out to him that a "sinful" city doesn't just have sinners. In order to have a viable civilization, you need men, women, children, and unborn babies. He responded that he saw no mention of killing of innocents. By this time, I was getting frustrated, so I explained to him it doesn't take that much leap of logic to add two and two together, that god commanded the Israelites to exterminate entire cities and these cities would inevitably have unborn children, babies, and toddlers. He continued to play dumb and said he didn't know what I was talking about. This was when I almost had a psychotic episode.
You can try it for yourself. Just bring up this issue and talk to one of our resident evangelists about this issue and see what happens. Playing dumb is their number 1 weapon against us. Unfortunately, there is no defense against this weapon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-28-2009 6:07 PM shalamabobbi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-01-2009 12:52 AM Taz has not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 5 of 142 (500653)
02-28-2009 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by shalamabobbi
02-28-2009 6:07 PM


A Fundy View
Hi shalamabobbi,
shalamabobbi writes:
I am assuming then for the purposes of this thread that the argument of whether the ToE is true or not is past, that it is indeed a fact.
The first thing as a Fundy as Taz calls us is I would require evidence that life can come from non life.
Yea I know this got separated out of the ToE many years ago. But I was taught abiogenesis was a fact. I still don't believe it.
The second thing I would require is evidence of transmutation.
Until then I don't know of any real fundies that you are going to impress with saying that over long periods of time the little micro evolution steps and even the different species (which is still the same critter). As in 330 different species of forams over 60 million years with an unbroken history. After 60 million years and 330 species they were still forams.
You guys have enough evidence to convince you it is a fact.
Fundies do not see enough evidence to convince them transmutation has ever taken place.
In my opinion if you guys can present evidence of transmutation you can begin to get to fundies.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-28-2009 6:07 PM shalamabobbi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-01-2009 12:56 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 10 by Rrhain, posted 03-01-2009 2:49 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 18 by kbertsche, posted 03-01-2009 11:13 PM ICANT has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2935 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 6 of 142 (500660)
03-01-2009 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Huntard
02-28-2009 7:04 PM


Re: that debunikg movie, it's already here.
Hi Huntard,
Thanks for the post of the movie links. I will view them as soon as some downloads finish.
As to the other part of your post. I think some people are beyond fredemption. The best way to introduce them to the evidence is to tell them about it, but if they're truly lost, they won't accept it anyway, at that point in time, it is generaly better for one's own sanity to just give up.
The method you describe is likely the best. It is the basis for business models for companies like Amway and ACN. It is easier to accept information that you might disbelieve/distrust from someone you know and trust than from a stranger on a forum. As for giving up, read my reply to Taz that follows.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Huntard, posted 02-28-2009 7:04 PM Huntard has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2935 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 7 of 142 (500661)
03-01-2009 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Taz
02-28-2009 7:48 PM


Hi Taz,
You can try it for yourself. Just bring up this issue and talk to one of our resident evangelists about this issue and see what happens. Playing dumb is their number 1 weapon against us. Unfortunately, there is no defense against this weapon.
I was engaged with a 'last Thursdayist' (on another forum) and was thinking along the same lines as Huntards' reply that it was pointless, but kept going anyhow. I focused on remaining as respectful as possible to other viewpoint and just kept discussing the issue as I would have, had the discussion been with my own child. When I posted a link to a youtube video the reply was the sidestep "Youtube videos? Seriously". I replied "Sorry ____, I made the mistake of assuming your inquiry was genuine. No problem then. I'll bow out of the debate. Enjoy the victory." After a few days she posted again with some further questions.
I kept bringing up different problems with the POV w/o thrusting everything I could upon her all at once. I left off the thread and came back on occasion. Finally I noticed a change in this persons' posts. Her posts started indicating a possibility that her view was lacking/incorrect. She began to acknowledge she could be wrong. But it could not have occurred in an atmosphere of slinging insults and ridicule or of being condescending.
The thing that is important to remember is we were there once ourselves, to one degree or another, and being in possession of a superior bit of knowledge does not make us superior to another who lacks that knowledge.
This observed change in this YEC, actually a YUC, was worth the effort IMO. But of all the YECs I've encountered I would have judged her the least likely to have modified her viewpoint.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Taz, posted 02-28-2009 7:48 PM Taz has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2935 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 8 of 142 (500662)
03-01-2009 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by ICANT
02-28-2009 8:47 PM


Re: A Fundy View
Hi ICANT,
This is OT but I will respond. If you want to pursue this debate please feel free to start a thread if you don't like any of the existing threads on these two topics.
Yea I know this got separated out of the ToE many years ago. But I was taught abiogenesis was a fact. I still don't believe it.
The theory of abiogenisis is being worked out and although not complete yet, a reasonable pathway is being thought out that eliminates the problems involved with the chance assemblage of the first cell. Keeping in mind the great length of time that this cellular level of evolution lasted before the cambrian explosion we might surmise that the development of the proper type of cellular life for higher organisms to evolve was not trivial. Why if God created life mechanistically would He leave this trivial part of creation alone for such a long period of time?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
The second thing I would require is evidence of transmutation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI
You live in an age our forbears could only have dreamed of. You have at your access knowledge of the very methods of creation, but like the children of Israel prefer to murmer and complain..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by ICANT, posted 02-28-2009 8:47 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by ICANT, posted 03-01-2009 1:35 PM shalamabobbi has replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2417 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 9 of 142 (500666)
03-01-2009 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by shalamabobbi
02-28-2009 6:07 PM


It would be hard to deny or overcome the basic observation made by Taz -- hard-core fundies will simply refuse to see, accept or understand evidence. Also, as ICANT has demonstrated (yet again), they will refuse to learn or apply the terminology, or to comprehend the theories and hyphotheses, in the same way that scientists do -- e.g., for the hard-core fundies, macro-evolution cannot be confirmed until we observe a fish giving birth to a frog, or similar nonsense.
But speaking as a U.S. citizen who fully supports the concept and legality of religious freedom, I don't really have a problem with fundies who simply refuse to understand. What I have a problem with is when they feel obligated by their beliefs to impose those beliefs on others, by trying to push absurdities into science classrooms, such as "teaching the controversy", "intelligent design", and other euphemisms for a religious indoctrination that would negate or stifle scientific thought.
In that regard, the problem I have is not just that it stifles science, but also that it directly violates the legal guarantee of religious freedom. The fundie agenda for education is to push a particular interpretation of a particular religious text as The Truth, all their feigned vagueness about an "unspecified designer" notwithstanding. The added fact that their chosen texts and interpretations are particularly untenable in view of sound, observable evidence, is actually a secondary issue.
I'm not so worried about figuring out how to break the wall of ignorance that these people have erected and reinforced around themselves. My main concern is to keep them from putting those same walls around science classes.
They will of course object (yet again) that science is just another form of religion, and this simply demonstrates another aspect of their self-imposed blindness: their overriding sense that everyone in the world surely shares the religious mindset, which cannot accommodate skepticism or allow real-life experiences to alter beliefs.
On what might be a less pessimistic note, I think it's not entirely a job just for the true scientists to keep the trouble from spreading. Obviously, scientists will have the most powerful resource -- observable fact -- for carrying any argument against fundies. But I think there is clearly a role to be played, and assistance to be provided, by those who hold firm religious beliefs while also accepting the validity of evidence in support of scientific theories.
These would include people whose sense of faith goes deeper than a literal interpretation of all biblical text as unquestionable historical record, people who understand that in forming beliefs from the text, they must make deliberate choices about how to interpret it relative to their own personal experience. Many of them are likely to understand that different people, reading the same text, arrive at different interpretations, and that this is a reflection of personal experience and personal choice, as well as social context. I think their mindset is as antithetical to fundies as any scientific or atheist mindset would be.
Even so, I wonder whether these "reconcilable" theists might have a better chance of connecting with fundies in a way that demonstrates how belief can and should change as experience and environment changes.
I find it curious how the fundies manage to lock into a particular "phase" of religious development. Many fundies sincerely acknowledge, and indeed adamantly profess, that their own religious beliefs are the result of many changes that have taken place throughout recorded history as they see it: animal sacrifices to God are no longer practiced, the notion of "an eye for an eye" is no longer a guiding principle, and so on. And yet, having acknowledged so much change over time, they seem to hold firmly that any further change must be a sin against God and cannot be allowed, unless/until they somehow determine that God speaks to them directly and tells them how to change.
Perhaps an approach to consider is to get them to open up a little more, in terms of what they might be able to accept as communication from God... An interesting challenge.
(Then again, there may some who assert adamantly, despite the obvious contradictions, that God's laws have never really changed.)

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-28-2009 6:07 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 10 of 142 (500667)
03-01-2009 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by ICANT
02-28-2009 8:47 PM


ICANT writes:
quote:
But I was taught abiogenesis was a fact.
By whom? In what journal or publication did you find any scientist anywhere claim that abiogenesis was a fact?
I call bullshit.
quote:
The second thing I would require is evidence of transmutation.
You mean how the bones of the reptilian jaw "transmuted" into the bones of the mammalian ear?
1.The transition from reptile to mammal has an excellent record. The following fossils are just a sampling. In particular, these fossils document the transition of one type of jaw joint into another. Reptiles have one bone in the middle ear and several bones in the lower jaw. Mammals have three bones in the middle ear and only one bone in the lower jaw. These species show transitional jaw-ear arrangements (Hunt 1997; White 2002b). The sequence shows transitional stages in other features, too, such as skull, vertebrae, ribs, and toes.
a.Sphenacodon (late Pennsylvanian to early Permian, about 270 million years ago (Mya)). Lower jaw is made of multiple bones; the jaw hinge is fully reptilian. No eardrum.
b.Biarmosuchia (late Permian). One of the earliest therapsids. Jaw hinge is more mammalian. Upper jaw is fixed. Hindlimbs are more upright.
c.Procynosuchus (latest Permian). A primitive cynodont, a group of mammal-like therapsids. Most of the lower jaw bones are grouped in a small complex near the jaw hinge.
d.Thrinaxodon (early Triassic). A more advanced cynodont. An eardrum has developed in the lower jaw, allowing it to hear airborne sound. Its quadrate and articular jaw bones could vibrate freely, allowing them to function for sound transmission while still functioning as jaw bones. All four legs are fully upright.
e.Probainognathus (mid-Triassic, about 235 Mya). It has two jaw joints: mammalian and reptilian (White 2002a).
f.Diarthrognathus (early Jurassic, 209 Mya). An advanced cynodont. It still has a double jaw joint, but the reptilian joint functions almost entirely for hearing.
g.Morganucodon (early Jurassic, about 220 Mya). It still has a remnant of the reptilian jaw joint (Kermack et al. 1981).
h.Hadrocodium (early Jurassic). Its middle ear bones have moved from the jaw to the cranium (Luo et al. 2001; White 2002b).
-- Reptile-Mammal Transition
So since the very evidence you claim doesn't exist has been found and documented, why do you persist in claiming it hasn't been shown?
quote:
Fundies do not see enough evidence to convince them transmutation has ever taken place.
Indeed. The problem is that no evidence will ever convince them. As someone I once debated said, if god himself came down and said that he used evolution to create life, she still wouldn't believe it.
And thus, we end up with a huge sequence of moving goalposts, every time a demand is made and fulfilled, a new one comes along showing the desperation so that it becomes clear that the only thing that would be sufficient is a direct visual observation of every single organism that has ever lived, parent to child, from the first life to the current life.
But I suspect even that wouldn't be sufficient. For some, there is no possible evidence that could convince them that they are wrong.
Tell us where you fall, ICANT: What would it take to convince you that you are wrong? Be specific. Exactly what is missing from the evidence we have that you need to see? How many times must we provide you the exact thing you say doesn't exist?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by ICANT, posted 02-28-2009 8:47 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22621
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 11 of 142 (500675)
03-01-2009 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Huntard
02-28-2009 7:04 PM


Re: that debunikg movie, it's already here.
I watched most of the first video. While I admire his skill in the visual media, he had most of his facts wrong about Sternberg. Sternberg not only wasn't fired from his job as editor of BSOW journal, he wasn't even demoted. It's not even a job, it's a voluntary position to which you're appointed for a fixed period, three years I think. Finding people to fill these roles can be difficult, which could partly explain how he came to fill the position. He served his full term as editor.
Prometheus is correct that Sternberg should have deferred the editor responsibility to an assistant editor more familiar with Cambrian life, but he's wrong to criticize Sternberg for not revealing the peer reviewers. Confidentiality is important to peer review. It drives me crazy that we'll never know who these reviewers were, but you can't have it both ways.
Prometheus failed to debunk a couple other Expelled claims. Sternberg was never employed by the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian has a cooperative agreement with other research organizations to provide them research resources, such as office space and access to the collection. It was under this agreement this Sternberg has an office in the Smithsonian and access to the collection. And Expelled just lies blatantly when it says that Sternberg no longer works at the Smithsonian. He's had continuous access to his office and to the collection to this very day.
The full and accurate facts about Sternberg can be found at Expelled Exposed: Richard Sternberg. I'm of course on Prometheus's side, but we should not let our friends commit the same offense of getting facts seriously wrong that creationists commit. He should have read pages like this before producing his video.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Spelling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Huntard, posted 02-28-2009 7:04 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Huntard, posted 03-01-2009 4:25 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 31 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-02-2009 1:28 PM Percy has not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 12 of 142 (500688)
03-01-2009 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by shalamabobbi
03-01-2009 12:56 AM


Re: A Fundy View
Hi shalamabobbi,
shalamabobbi writes:
Hi ICANT,
This is OT but I will respond. If you want to pursue this debate please feel free to start a thread if you don't like any of the existing threads on these two topics.
I did not state anything to debate.
You had asked the evo's what would be required to convince a fundamentalist of the ToE.
I made a statement of what it would take to convince me, a fundamentalist of the ToE.
There is nothing to debate about what it would take to convince me.
As far as evidence I do not accept youtube, The Talk Origins, AIG or other personal web sites. I will accept scientific papers as evidence even though I may disagree with the interpretation of the evidence.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-01-2009 12:56 AM shalamabobbi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Straggler, posted 03-01-2009 2:14 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 25 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-02-2009 11:18 AM ICANT has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 152 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 13 of 142 (500689)
03-01-2009 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by ICANT
03-01-2009 1:35 PM


Re: A Fundy View
Do you accept verified predictions of new evidence (i.e discoveries) made as a direct result of evolutionary theory as evidence in favour of evolutionary theory?
Or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ICANT, posted 03-01-2009 1:35 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 5002 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 14 of 142 (500691)
03-01-2009 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by shalamabobbi
02-28-2009 6:07 PM


I would like to hear from theists who accept ToE and whether accepting ToE presented a challenge to their faith and how they overcame/resolved this conflict in their minds, or whether it presented no conflict from the get go. What was it that facilitated this change in viewpoint allowing you to accept the ToE?
So instead of arguing with ICANT about what it would take to change his mind, I'm just going to give a personal anecdote ask requested by shalamabobbi.
While currently an atheist, my switch from theism to atheism has nothing to do with the ToE. However, when I first started learning about the ToE, I was an active member in the Episcopal church where I grew up.
I'd always been interested in science, and once I started learning about the ToE, it totally grabbed my attention, and I knew starting in the 8th grade that I wanted to study evolutionary biology for the rest of my life (I currently have a BS in Ecology and Evolution, and will be starting as a doctoral student this coming fall). During the time I was learning about the theory, it never really brought up serious doubts in my faith. I mean, I had them, of course, but while talking to people about them, I often was able to resolve them easily. I attribute this completely to the religious environment in which I was raised: while I went to an Episcopal church, I also attended a Catholic school from K through 8th grade. Now, both churches have many many faults, the Catholic church more only because it's been around longer, but in one thing they get it right. They encourage a critical thinking about the Bible. I was never taught that the Earth was created in six days, or to take anything really at face value. I was taught to consider the symbolism and allegory present throughout the book. During high school, as I got closer to going to college, and I was talking to people about what I was going to study, I actually felt much more comfortable talking to my priests at my Episcopal church about it than many other people in my somewhat conservative town.
My point here is that I believe my faith and my acceptance of science were never an issue because from the beginning, with my parents, and my school teachers, and my priests, i was taught to think critically. I was taught to delve below the surface, to consider context, and human nature. If we're going to convince "fundies" to accept evolution by natural selection, it's not going to happen over night. We have to start by making sure that our schools, when kids are at an early age, do not get taught just memorize facts, and accept them because the teacher says so. We need to make sure that all kids attending public schools are taught how to think critically. Now, this won't affect kids who are home- or private-schooled, but it will at least increase the numbers of people who can think critically in this country.
I know my plan doesn't sound like much, and that it will take forever, but really, you're not going to convince adults that are already set in their ways. Those changes can only come from within. Sure you can present them with all the evidence in the world, but until they take their own blinders off, they won't see it. It also requires a lot of local action. Federal educational standards will not be sufficient. It's up to the parents of the children in the schools to make sure the schools are hiring teachers that will require their kids to think critically.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-28-2009 6:07 PM shalamabobbi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-02-2009 12:38 PM Stagamancer has replied
 Message 101 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 10:27 PM Stagamancer has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2381 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 15 of 142 (500695)
03-01-2009 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Percy
03-01-2009 8:16 AM


Re: that debunikg movie, it's already here.
Ah, so his rebuttal isn't perfect, thanks for pointing it out.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 03-01-2009 8:16 AM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024